In the US, rightwing commentators are calling for easier surveillance
of emails, more lenient telephone tapping procedures, new draconian
powers to hold suspect terrorists and the reintroduction of assassination
as a legitimate CIA tool against terrorists and political leaders
who harbour them. In Europe, home affairs and justice ministers
meet in Brussels tomorrow to discuss emergency measures for combating
terrorism. A new European capture order, as well as abolition
of formal extradition procedures are on the agenda. In the UK,
ministers are talking of reintroducing identity cards that were
abolished by Winston Churchill's government in 1952.

It is not just the west's generals who need cool heads, but
ministers too. Defenders of civil rights need to mount a vigilant
guard. History suggests emergency legislation passed in the aftermath
of a terrorist attack only serves to undermine the very rights
that legislators purport to be protecting. Look no further than
the 1974 Prevention of Terrorism Act, passed in the wake of two
IRA terrorist bombs in Birmingham. Rushed through parliament
within 48 hours by a Labour government, the PTA was originally
supposed to have lasted for six months. Sixteen years later it
was still in place and was only abolished by the introduction
of the equally draconian Terrorism Act of 2000. The European
court of human rights did force the UK to amend two oppressive
PTA clauses - detention without judicial authority for seven
days and exclusion orders-but the main framework remained in
place. One reason why the demands for extra surveillance powers
in the US are not being made here, is that they already exist
through the Terrorism Act and the Regulation of Investigatory
Powers Act. They allow the police, security services and customs
and excise to monitor phone calls, intercept emails and read
faxes without adequate judicial authority.

Ministers on both sides of the Atlantic need to keep three
lessons in mind. First, that anti-terrorist laws can pollute
criminal justice systems more generally. Second, that such laws
can encourage criminal justice agencies to bend the rules to
ensure convictions; remember the succession of Irish convictions
quashed because of bent police evidence. Third, that they can
create a two-tier system of justice which bears most heavily
on racial minorities. Such systems have no place in a democratic
society.